District Judge Did Not Have To Adopt Reasonable Fee Award Position Of The Defense, But Could Reduce The Request Even More.
USA ex rel. Palmer v C&D Technologies, Inc., No. 17-2350 (3d Cir. July 17, 2018) (precedential/published) involved a False Claims Act relator’s request for $3,113,530.50 in attorney’s fees under a prevailing party fee-shifting statute, 31 U.S.C. §3730(d)(2), after the defendant settled with him for $1.7 million (about 6% of his total demanded damages in a Second Amended Complaint). The suit was spawned by claims that defendant manufactured and shipped 349 defective batteries to the U.S. Government for ICM launch controls. (Relator sought costs of $164,585.49, which were awarded because they were not really contested by the defense.)
An E.D. Pennsylvania district judge awarded relator $1,794,427.27 in fees instead. From an overall perspective he was disturbed by a lot of mud being thrown and unprofessional conduct along the way in the fee proceeding, observing at some point that “[i]t is a hellish judicial duty to review and resolve disputed attorneys’ fee petitions, particularly in cases, like this one, where the adversaries fan the flames at virtually every opportunity.” He also was concerned by the fact that relator increased his fee request by $1 million a year later after the parties were unable to compromise on the fee request after slow, ugly negotiations which were unproductive.
The district judge did adopt hourly rates for Philadelphia venue work based on hourly rates published by Community Legal Services. He next reduced for excessive work, principally limiting compensation to one attorney questioning and one attorney attending at depositions, reducing claimed work on summary judgment and Daubert motions, and then further reducing the total after the prior reductions for an additional 10% due to a lack of success.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district judge’s fees order but remanded because the district judge failed to consider “fees on fees” (with relator requesting $564,599.12, to which we respectfully say “good luck” on remand). The appeals court found the reductions in the base fee request to be appropriate. Relator’s major argument was that the district court had no discretion to reduce the request any more than the defense suggestion of what fees should be awarded. It stated: “Relator does not cite any decision that requires a district court to award at a minimum the amount of attorneys’ fees that the opposing party contends is reasonable, and we decline to make such a ruling today.” (Slip Op., p. 16.)